How attractive is Britain to ‘benefit tourists’?

It's been reported that work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith is to challenge the EU commissioner Laszlo Andor after the latter, along with his fellow commissioners, announced that the commission would be taking Britain to court for discriminatory practices in its application of regulations on welfare payments.

It’s been reported that work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith is set to challenge the EU commissioner Laszlo Andor after the latter, along with his fellow commissioners, announced that the EU Commission would be taking Britain to court for discriminatory practices in its application of regulations on welfare payments.

Predictably Duncan Smith’s response – that this is an attempted “land grab” by the Commission – has received far more press coverage than the details of commissioner Andor’s legal challenge.

So what is the commissioner’s problem?

Well since 2004, child benefit, child tax credit, state pension credit and unemployment support allowance have only been paid to those classed as having a ‘right to reside’ in the UK. British nationals are granted this status automatically, but those from elsewhere in the EU must be resident in the UK for at least five years before being granted ‘right to reside’ status.

These rules have been branded unfair by the European Commission for a number of reasons.

One example of the problem with the rules is that technically they could result in a Polish woman who wanted to start claiming benefits (say for a child) after living, working and paying taxes in the UK for two years being unable to, whereas a British woman would be able to, even if she had never worked in her life.

The argument put forward by the government is that any removal of this ‘right to reside’ test would result in an influx of ‘benefit tourists’.

There are several problems with this assertion.

Even if the ‘right to reside’ rule were overturned, it would still be difficult for a migrant from the EU to park themselves on benefits in the UK – let alone come here with the intention of immediately becoming a ‘benefit tourist’.

Something called the habitual residence test, which was introduced in 1994 by John Major’s government, means that before being allowed to claim any benefits in the UK immigrants are interviewed about their reasons for entering the country, how long they have been here, as well as their work status and history.

As a rule a person would need to have been in Britain for at least one to three months before they are able to claim any kind of benefit.

There is always the possibility of course that someone could come to the UK, spend all their money during the first month or so before parking themselves on benefits. However considering the government’s own rhetoric around welfare reform – that it is ‘getting tough’ with those whose ‘curtains are still drawn at midday’ – this seems unlikely.

It is no longer possible for UK citizens to spend a life on benefits without actively looking for work (as the coalition will readily boast), and there is no evidence to suggest migrants from elsewhere in the EU will find the system any easier.

The other thing to note is that there is no precedent for migrants from the EU coming to Britain as benefit tourists. In 2008-09, at the height of Labour’s policy of so-called ‘uncontrolled immigration’, A8 immigrants paid 37 per cent more in direct or indirect taxes than they received in public goods and services.

A8 immigrants contributed 0.96 per cent of total tax receipts and accounted for only 0.6 per cent of total expenditures (see table).

Immigration graph 2

And finally, there’s also the stuff about Britain’s ‘over-generous welfare state’. Here is Fraser Nelson on Question Time in May of 2012:

“Our benefits are some of the most generous in Europe.”

Yet if we look beyond tabloid rhetoric at the fact, it simply isn’t true. A study by the Economic and Social Research Council’s Centre for Population Change (CPC) carried out last year found that the UK had below average levels of welfare spending among developed nations. (See graph).

Welfare systems across Europe

So in conclusion, not only is there no reason to view Britain as any more attractive to benefit tourists than other EU countries, but there is very little reason to think that the removal of the ‘right to reside’ rule would make a significant difference to the numbers of people claiming benefits. In other words, the ‘row’ over commissioner Andor’s challenge to the British government is probably another attempt to ward off UKIP.

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

8 Responses to “How attractive is Britain to ‘benefit tourists’?”

  1. EricMurphy

    Same old Labour, always so keen to give away the hard-earned wages of the working man and woman to all and sundry, rather than looking after OUR MONEY.

  2. hatchepsut

    Did you actually even read the article?

  3. LB

    I did. It’s quite racist.

    A8 good. Native Bad.

  4. LB

    Here’s a question.

    Average government spend per person in the UK is 11,500 pounds a year. That’s 44,000 a year in salary before you break even. That’s per migrant.

    Are the migrants on benefits paying that level of tax? If not they aren’t an economic benefit to the UK. They are being subsidised by other people.

    We can see this in a more extreme example.

    1. Is Abramovitch an economic benefit to the UK with his billions?
    2. Is Abu Qatada an economic benefit to the UK?

    Depending on your football preferences, 1 is going to be true. 2 however is false. He’s a massive liability running up huge costs to the expense of others.

    Now the left likes to generalise in particularly racist ways. For example, if I said Polish workers were crap, only employ Brits, I’d be done in court. However, this article states the reverse. Brits bad, A8 good. Its pure racism.

    What is needed is a threshold for migration. So long as you pay more tax than the government spends on you, you can stay. If you don’t you can’t come and you have to leave.

    That way the UK makes the choice of which migrants to accept and which to reject. It’s a choice. Even under EU law its a choice. That law is freedom of movement of goods, services, people and capital. Now we know that law isn’t absolute. We just walk the streets of Nicosia and ask Cypriots if they can move their capital. That’s been banned and the EU has ruled it legal. In fact it was the EU that imposed it.

  5. blarg1987

    Is your argument not contradictionary? You say Brit’s are bad immigrants is good and claim it is racist because overall they pay more in taxes then they take out of the system, yet you then say we should only have immigrants that contribute more then they consume in services.m That makes no sense, either you accept generally the benefits system is not as bad as is made up and accept that and push for further reforms in a practical matter then you believe should be done. Or put counter evidence to say where it is wrong.

  6. LB

    Not at all.

    1. I am not stating foreigners are better than brits. The article is because they allegedly pay more tax than brits so are better.

    2. Note too, that no evidence is offered up for the core issues. Do migrants pay more tax than the government spends? If they don’t then they are an economic burden.

    3. Note too. Its a question that even yourself aren’t answering. Abu Qatada is a migrant. Is he an economic benefit to the UK? You can also answer the flip question. Is Ambramovitch good for the UK?

    4. If you don’t understand why the two questions above are important, its because migration, even from the EU is an option. The UK can choose.

    So it could choose only to accept migrants that pay their way, and aren’t susidised by others. That isn’t racist, because there is nothing about race in there. I’m not claiming like the original article that foreign migrants are better than brits. I’m saying lets be selective on a non racist test, economic benefit, which economic migrants we accept.

    So when it comes to migrants and benefits. If you think they are an economic benefit to the UK, then have a ban on any migrant getting any welfare. By definition if you aren’t earning and need to go on welfare, then you aren’t paying tax to cover the welfare.

  7. blarg1987

    To answer 3 directly everyone knows he is not a economic benefit, however he was not brought in under the EU free movement or persons movement but claimed asylum which is a completly different area altogeather.

    Ambramovitch potentially good however it is hard to know without doing a detailed breakdown of how much he spends in the Uk compared to any claims against tax on his UK investments.

  8. LB

    Thanks for answering. I agree. in both. I suspect Abromovitch is, because of his spending and wealth. Abu Qatada isn’t. I do also accept the point over asylum. There aren’t many people on asylum in the UK, we have to accept any genuine claimant.

    However, the point is that somewhere between Qatada and Amromovitch, there is a line. Those below the line, aren’t an economic benefit and those above are.

    Why should we allow people in who are below the line? If we do, other people have to subsidise them.

    Now if you want someone below the line to come in, you could always act as a guarantor. You agree to make up the difference. I’ve no objection to that. I do object when you force other people to do that.

Leave a Reply